Schotz-Powers Co. v. Treidler

128 Misc. 466, 219 N.Y.S. 4, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 797
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedDecember 15, 1926
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 128 Misc. 466 (Schotz-Powers Co. v. Treidler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Schotz-Powers Co. v. Treidler, 128 Misc. 466, 219 N.Y.S. 4, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1926).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

As the occupation of the demised premises, by reason of the violation of zoning and building department regulations, was unlawful, the tenant was justified in rescinding the lease and abandoning possession, and no recovery can be had by the landlord for rent during such unlawful occupation or by the tenant for rent paid. Since it does not appear that after the making of the lease the landlord could not have obtained the [467]*467necessary departmental permits, the lease itself was not unlawful in its inception, and the tenant is entitled to recover the deposit made to secure performance of the lease.

Judgment reversed, with $30 costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits, and judgment directed for defendant for $229.17, with interest and costs.

All concur; present, Delehanty, Lydon and O’Malley, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mateo v. Anokwuru
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 Misc. 466, 219 N.Y.S. 4, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schotz-powers-co-v-treidler-nyappterm-1926.